Hobs told you player policing worked in UO, all they could do in UO was kill the players character.I don't believe the same thing will hold true for the much faster paced PFO. I still believe killing a player character will only be a slight inconvenience in PFO.
*sigh* and as I have pointed out you have many more tools available to you in PfO than killing them. You can deny them high level training. You can deny them high level crafting facilities.
On top of that you may be able to cut them off from the big market hubs. In addition it has been said by devs that losing access to training facilities may mean you can no longer slot some skills.
These are powerful tools you can basically cut off a players ability to advance. Any more severe than that really doesn't belong in players hands. Nihimon and Andius are always quick to claim players will be banned if they are a problem. If a player is so toxic he has been exiled from every player settlement then I am sure Goblinworks will be taking a deep look at the player in any case, unless of course you don't have faith in the assertions of GW active policing.
Goblin Squad Member
|
*sigh* and as I have pointed out you have many more tools available to you in PfO than killing them. You can deny them high level training. You can deny them high level crafting facilities.
On top of that you may be able to cut them off from the big market hubs. In addition it has been said by devs that losing access to training facilities may mean you can no longer slot some skills.
I feel we are going back and forth on this couple of points as I have already commented on them earlier.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To the debate at hand, I do not think anyone wants a "murder simulator" that will drive off all but the bloodthirstiest players.
This is not an opinion which I share. I've seen the opposition defend scamming, toxic chat, hold up both EVE and Darkfall as examples of atmospheres they support, and even admit to engaging in behaviors that trick newbs into opening themselves to PvP when they thought they were safe, then defended that behavior as a positive learning experience for those newbs.
I'm sorry but I refuse to acknowledge such opposition as moderate or reasonable. Sure they claim to be anti-griefer and pretend to not want a murder sim all they want but I'm slightly confused as to what could possibly go far enough to be considered griefing to them when they consider can-flipping as positive player interaction, and what could possibly meet their definition of a murder sim if Darkfall does not. Their claims of moderation and wanting this game to succeed are only so many empty words with absolutely nothing to back them up.
As to UO, when it was released there was not a great deal of competition. As you mentioned the players who went to the PVE server eventually went on to other games. Other games that still exist , and have been joined by many more. If we want many PvEers to co-habit a world alongside PvPers with all the PvE catered games on the market there needs to be a draw to bring them here, and measures in-place to prevent their constant abuse.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
One of the things about UO I believe: Most players back then had a shared interest in RPG games (PnP) and coop RPG video-games? I think the community having the same "game-playing values" could be a valuable element to a fantasy sandbox mmorpgs for all sorts of associated reasons (social, atmosphere, expectations, compatibility etc).
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
To the debate at hand, I do not think anyone wants a "murder simulator" that will drive off all but the bloodthirstiest players.This is not an opinion which I share. I've seen the opposition defend scamming, toxic chat, hold up both EVE and Darkfall as examples of atmospheres they support, and even admit to engaging in behaviors that trick newbs into opening themselves to PvP when they thought they were safe, then defended that behavior as a positive learning experience for those newbs.
I'm sorry but I refuse to acknowledge such opposition as moderate or reasonable. Sure they claim to be anti-griefer and pretend to not want a murder sim all they want but I'm slightly confused as to what could possibly go far enough to be considered griefing to them when they consider can-flipping as positive player interaction, and what could possibly meet their definition of a murder sim if Darkfall does not. Their claims of moderation and wanting this game to succeed are only so many empty words with absolutely nothing to back them up.
My definition of a "murder simulator" is an MMO that gives you nothing else to do but to kill others; gives that killing limited or no purpose; Makes losing in PVP consequence free; and as a general rule, the MMO does not give adequate incentives for players to form strong and mutually beneficial player groupings.
The universally accepted examples of griefing (Respawn camping, corpse camping, repeated killing of the same character over and over again, and chat that violates the EULA), also need to be strongly dealt with.
In all other cases or examples, if you feel it it wrong report it. If that does not address your situation, gather a group of friends and avenge it (using the systems of the game, or course).
I have no doubts that PFO will not turn into a "Murder Simulator" because GW have already stated that many of the things I have listed are being put into place.
* There is more to do than just kill
* PVP has a purpose other than just killing
* There are consequences for dying, which limits frivolous PVP engagements
* Players are encouraged to join player groups and to work together for mutual benefit and safety.
* There are several systems in place for players and their groups to exact retribution against those that have harmed them.
All of this and there will also be less known measures that GW directs specifically at griefers, hackers and the like.
Is there really more?
It reminds me one time when Pres. George W. Bush was being criticized for the outcome of the James Byrd trial. He had to say, "Two of them (defendants) got the Death Penalty, and the other got Life in Prison w/ no parole."
Is there really any more that can be done?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My thoughts exactly. The criteria given leave a category so narrow that I can't think of a single MMO it applies to. Including this:
From my experience, Felucca (FFA PvP) eventually became inhabited almost entirely by PvP hungry players who tended to hold the Trammelites in contempt.
Fortunately it's not Bluddwolf's definition that matters but Ryan's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard Ryan describe EVE's atmosphere as toxic / a murder sim. So I absolutely see Bluddwolf as an advocate of murder sims and it seems to me as if he holds all players who don't want that in contempt. Just like the worst inhabitants of Felucca.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ever hear of Planetside 2? You two know its considered an MMO right? I know you do since you two have done your homework, I cant believe I even asked.
What about Warthunder? World of Tanks?
Do I need to name more?
I have never seen Ryan call Eve a murder sim. And if he has, which I doubt, then he has never played the game.
Wow, talk about toxic posts. Talk high and mighty about toxic behavior, then prove your just as toxic.
Thanks
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Ever hear of Planetside 2? You two know its considered an MMO right? I know you do since you two have done your homework, I cant believe I even asked.
What about Warthunder? World of Tanks?
Yes I have but it doesn't fall outside the criteria given by Bluddwolf:
1. There is more to do than just kill.
In Planetside 2 there are several roles you can play such as a dropship pilot, medic etc. that focus on aspects other than just killing people. The ultimate objective is not killing, it's taking objectives, which can be done without killing people however rare that may be.
2. PVP has a purpose other than just killing
As stated, the primary purpose is taking objectives. Not killing people.
3. There are consequences for dying, which limits frivolous PVP engagements.
The more powerful vehicles, drop suits, etc. require resources which you will burn through if you use them and lose them frivolously.
4. Players are encouraged to join player groups and to work together for mutual benefit and safety.
You are generally more effective by far in a squad.
5. There are several systems in place for players and their groups to exact retribution against those that have harmed them.
It has just as many such mechanics as Darkfall.
I have not played either of the other ones, but I understand WOT is match based, thus not comparable to games like PFO, EVE, and Darkfall. They are more glorified Halo matches than true MMOs, and they can't even hold as many people as the average Freelancer server.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So your going to go with the positive notes he made about PFO instead of what he defines as a murder simulator? Nice...
"My definition of a "murder simulator" is an MMO that gives you nothing else to do but to kill others; gives that killing limited or no purpose; Makes losing in PVP consequence free; and as a general rule, the MMO does not give adequate incentives for players to form strong and mutually beneficial player groupings."
The whole point of planetside 2 is killing, whether your a medic, pilot, or any other example you chose.
The only purpose for killing is for points... and getting them away from the capture spots. The whole point of the game is killing.
Losing mods from vehicles is pointless, they are easy to regain, just kill something. 99% of your upgrades are never lost.
Its a team based game, but there is no incentive to join a player group. You can join random squads from the mobs of players.
Whether you want to compare the games or not is up to you. They are all still Massive Multiplayer Online games.
Thanks Again
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As alluded above, one of the things about -RPG bit is for eg everyone talking in character as a social convention, is something that now is impossible but I hear back in early days was much more widespread.
Just mentioning this aspect of -RPG where players are more like members of a social club than just commercial customers in the same shop at the same time buying from the same shelves.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My definition of a "murder simulator" is an MMO that...Care to provide examples of MMOs that qualify under your definition? Or did you simply define "murder simulator" out of existence?
I would place Darkfall very close to matching my definition. Rust would be another, but it is only in Alpha so I'd give it a pass for now.
Can you name an open world PvP MMO that you have played, for any significant period of time, that you did not feel it was a "murder sim"?
A note on Ryan Dancey's statements. I don't know if he in fact called EvE a murder simulator, I seriously doubt it. But, if he did, I would take it with a grain of salt. Reason being, and I'm sure many of you don't consider it, he woukd be negatively commenting on the signature game produced by a company that fired him.
Now to his credit, he has made some comments of praise for EvE Online, but that does not mean that he is devoid of negative bias.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
My thoughts exactly. The criteria given leave a category so narrow that I can't think of a single MMO it applies to. Including this:
From my experience, Felucca (FFA PvP) eventually became inhabited almost entirely by PvP hungry players who tended to hold the Trammelites in contempt.Fortunately it's not Bluddwolf's definition that matters but Ryan's. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always heard Ryan describe EVE's atmosphere as toxic / a murder sim. So I absolutely see Bluddwolf as an advocate of murder sims and it seems to me as if he holds all players who don't want that in contempt. Just like the worst inhabitants of Felucca.
I'm not familiar with the game that Hobs mentioned, so I could not tell you one way or the other if I would categorize it as a murder sim based on my definition.
I also don't see where your belief would be that I have to have the same definition as you, Nihimon or Ryan for that matter. You are certainly entitled to not agree.
As for my holding players in contempt, that is not true. I may hold the use of certain terms, or certain practices in "contempt" (I even think that us a strong word in that context), but rarely people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Can you name an open world PvP MMO that you have played, for any significant period of time, that you did not feel it was a "murder sim"?
ArcticMUD. I've talked about it quite a bit. I played it for years. It made a big impression on me, and in a lot of ways every game I've played since I've compared to it.
I loved it. It was definitely Open PvP, and there weren't even any real consequences for killing others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Andius,
I'm not getting into the two paragraphs you spent describing Blud and Xeen without actually naming them. We get it...you don't like each other.
As to UO, when it was released there was not a great deal of competition. As you mentioned the players who went to the PVE server eventually went on to other games. Other games that still exist , and have been joined by many more. If we want many PvEers to co-habit a world alongside PvPers with all the PvE catered games on the market there needs to be a draw to bring them here, and measures in-place to prevent their constant abuse.
I have never advocated for the removal of measures (mechanics) that attempt to curb constant abuse. Equally, I am all for providing draws to bring players into PFO who have various play styles, so long as they clearly understand the type of game that PFO is before they join. What I am firmly against is the creation of so many preventative game mechanics that people actually can be totally free of the possibility of nonconsensual PvP. Remember, I am as committed to helping new players as you, but PFO cannot be an open world PvP game, and at the same time, promise you total immunity to undesired PvP, even if you are a new player.
Somewhere on the spectrum between immunity/totally-consensual-PvP and murder simulator, there's a happy medium to be found. GW is attempting to provide mechanics to help us find it, but as Ryan has said, they cannot stop all the undesirables themselves. I trust in my fellow players to be able to work together to pick up the remaining slack. To me, that's part of a sandbox - part of players being able to do for themselves, rather than hoping for the game to do it for them. I've seen players accomplish this, but I've also seen heavy handed solutions take that opportunity away. All I'm asking for is moderation.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Somewhere on the spectrum between immunity/totally-consensual-PvP and murder simulator, there's a happy medium to be found.
Absolutely. However I think it's important to point out that on that spectrum there's people like UNC all the way at the "Anything goes!" "Can flipping is positive player interaction!" "Scamming is good!" extreme. Then at the exact opposite side there are people like this and this, and this. And you can notice how many favorites all of those posts have.
This isn't an extremists vs. extremists debate. It's a moderates vs. extremists debate. I have never seen Nihimon, Decius, Ryan Dancey, or anyone else who holds our point of view advocating the idea that non-consensual PvP is bad or should not be allowed. I have however seen Xeen arguing emphatically that killing for killing's sake is meaningful gameplay. And Bluddwolf arguing emphatically that using exploits to trick newbs into making themselves consequence free targets / scamming people is meaningful gameplay. That's the kind of crap we are opposing. Not the idea that the world should constantly present some level of danger.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In no way do I think EVE is a murder simulator.
My apologies, I assumed you did because you've described it's community as toxic on numerous occasions.
What would your definition of a murder sim be?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LOL... Is that all you got? "Can Flipping" and the "Decimal point scam" (which I have never used, because I figured no one is that stupid).
I'm fairly certain what Ryan will categorize as a "murder simulator", it would very closely mirror what I had suggested earlier. Yes it is a very narrow definable term that would not fit a majority of MMOs out there.
"Murder Simulator" is much like "Random Player Killing" it sounds like the Boogie Man, used to scare young children, but in reality it is really not necessary to actually exist. Its used to justify the steps Ryan and crew are trying to develop to discourage negative behaviors.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think EVE is a fantastic product that is very well designed. And it is a great business and it is managed by people I love and want to be successful.
That it has a toxic community is a negative but it is outweighed by EVE's positives. Toxicity and murder simulations are not synonyms.
A murder simulation is likely, in my opinion, to have a toxic community based on the self-selection of the kinds of people who want that experience. But the toxicity of the community doesn't necessarily overlap with a major portion of the player base. FPS games are murder sims, and have extremely toxic communities - but most people who play them don't participate in those communities. 95% of the players never have a meaningful out of game interaction with the toxicity and if they do they are much more likely to mute or block than engage. If it happens in game, they ignore or quit. When some kid on an open mike in Battlefield repeats profanities and racial slurs in an unending monotone, I mute that kid after 30 seconds and never hear them again. I do the same in League of Legends, which I would not say is a murder sim.
But how do I avoid the Inherent toxicity of the gatecamping pirate who haunts my deadspaces and asteroid belts with the character name "Killzalldahniggahs"? Either I go offline, or I have to put up with the constant low-level harassment.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I don't think EVE is a bad game. I just think that it has made a lot of choices that will keep it from being as popular as it could be in general. And on a personal level a game that can't entertain me for more than brief periods of time, though admittedly that's more due to the fact I find EVE's combat to be incredibly dull.
Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.
I have said from day one that our goal is a game with lots of PvP and little meaningless PvP. Killing newbies "just because" is the ultimate definition of meaningless PvP. We'll just work and work and work, with in game mechanical systems, community management and supervisory authority to keep punishing people who kill meaninglessly, especially if they're meaninglessly killing newbies.
I just don't know how much more plainly I can state this. I'd rather shut down the game and quit than run a simplistic murder simulator for the enjoyment of a tiny fraction of sociopaths.
Based on the definition of murder simulator I've been using is one with a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. That is exactly the kind of culture I've observed EVE to have the moment you leave high sec.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LOL... Is that all you got? "Can Flipping" and the "Decimal point scam" (which I have never used, because I figured no one is that stupid).For those who can recognize a griefer when they see one, that's all I need.
Thankfully, Ryan's definition of griefing does not match your's or those who favorited your post.
He had clearly stated previously that can flipping and decimal scamming is not griefing.
Can flipping exploited a flaw in the mechanics, but CCP decided that it was emergent play and so they left it alone. I had also clearly stated that can flipping was made obsolete years ago, and there is far more isk to be made in ninja looting / salvaging. Virtually no one jet cans anymore.
The decimal scam is preying upon morons who don't "LOOK" before they click to buy. How often could the same person fall for that? Any more than once and they deserve to be broke.
What you want is a game who's mechanics make it idiot proof. That can't be done.
I recommend you and your crew read Hobs' posts in this thread, he has hit the nail on the head!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
LOL... Is that all you got? "Can Flipping" and the "Decimal point scam" (which I have never used, because I figured no one is that stupid).For those who can recognize a griefer when they see one, that's all I need.Thankfully, Ryan's definition of griefing does not match your's or those who favorited your post.
He had clearly stated previously that can flipping and decimal scamming is not griefing.
Lol. What are you smoking? Source?
The only statement I remember hearing him make is that that form of behavior will not be tolerated in PFO.
He didn't say one way or the other that he considers it to be griefing, and as long as he holds to the stance that it won't be tolerated, I don't care what label gets slapped on it.
You can call it cotton candy for all I care. It's still going to get you banned if you keep doing it.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Based on the definition of murder simulator I've been using is one with a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. That is exactly the kind of culture I've observed EVE to have the moment you leave high sec.
When you leave Hi Sec in EvE, you enter the KNOWN PVP zone. So, you are objecting to being PVP killed in a PVP zone??
You even get a warning before entering low sec, one that has to be clicked off.
If you object to the risk vs. reward system used in virtually every MMO, with PVP zoning, than what are you doing here? Goblin Works has said that the rarer resources will be found in the more dangerous hexes.
Adding to that, GW has also opened up the PVP by adding greater risk and rewards to joining player companies, settlements and NPC factions. Will these also lead to a degenerate culture according to your definition?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
If you object to the risk vs. reward system used in virtually every MMO, with PVP zoning, than what are you doing here?
Waiting for a game with a wide array of options for meaningful PvP, that does not allow you to kill anyone and everyone you see without provocation or consequence.
Waiting for a game where the majority of the map and 100% of the claimable territory isn't subject to a system (or lack thereof) that incentives players to either slaughter or run from everyone they meet because there is no to tell which players are and aren't likely to murder you unless they've been specifically flagged as blue by your alliance.
That's what PFO is if you hadn't caught on already.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Ryan,
Would it be safe to say, there will be no jettison cans in PFO? / sarcasm
I am curious, who's responsibility is it to make sure they know how much they are paying for an item, before they click "purchase"? / sarcasm
Seriously though, when entering an uncontrolled or monster hex in PFO, will there be a warning that the player is now entering a hex without laws or NPC wardens?
Hopefully that warning could be clicked or toggles off for those who no longer need it.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Many MMOs with PvP develop a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. This then drives people who don't like dying pointlessly out of the game, leaving only people who are ok with pointless killing.Based on the definition of murder simulator I've been using is one with a degenerate culture where any character that can be killed is killed. That is exactly the kind of culture I've observed EVE to have the moment you leave high sec.
I think the key word in my quote is "pointlessly". I do understand that the point can be in the eye of the killer or the killed so it isn't an absolute condition. Part of the goal we have to have as a community is explaining to people who get whacked why and to give some meaning to the loss or to ID players who are just whacking people for the lulz and either seek to reform them or excise them.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
He had clearly stated previously that can flipping and decimal scamming is not griefing.
I think those are both griefing tactics. They're horrible. But in EVE they're not bannable offenses nor are they considered exploits so there's no out-of-game sanction for engaging in those behaviors.
There will be in Pathfinder Online.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
@ Andius
@ Bluddwolf
It seems like, to me anyway, that you share more common ground about these things than the back and forth will let you see.
It looks to me like Andius wants to protect the newest and less skilled players from the predations of older more skilled killers. That he is ok with competition between equal or nearly equal abilities. I doubt that he would hold back attacking some "lvl 5" killers assaulting some "lvl 1" newbs with his "lvl 10" force though.
It looks to me like Bluddwolf is not in favor of predation against newbies in a game that he knows it will be frowned upon or perhaps is not in favor of it as personal policy. He has said that he personally won't be interested in lone gatherers in general, but would prefer richer targets. I doubt that Bluddwolf will pass a loaded gatherer unless there are better targets in plenty though.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have a random question.
In general how often and how long can organizations be feuded or at war and with how many different people can you be in such a state with?
i was reading another thread and i had a concern. Mostly that if the costs are low even and its limited that organizations will run alt organizations to feud themselves to protect them from feuds/wars from others.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks to me like Andius wants to protect the newest and less skilled players from the predations of older more skilled killers. That he is ok with competition between equal or nearly equal abilities. I doubt that he would hold back attacking some "lvl 5" killers assaulting some "lvl 1" newbs with his "lvl 10" force though.
Somewhat. I certainly find veterans preying on newbs for weak reasons or personal amusement to be the most detestable form of PvP. Can flipping would fall under that category.
But basically what I object is killing for the sake of killing. That still leaves room for a TON of acceptable forms of PvP.
All of the following reasons are ones that I personally find acceptable / non-toxic for myself and any other high rep NG player:
- I was at war / in a feud with them.
- They attacked me / an ally / a friendly / a neutral player and I was defending myself / that player.
- They disobeyed our settlement's / ally's settlment's laws.
- They were a murderer.
- I had a bounty contract.
- They were of an opposing faction.
- They wanted to fight me.
All those reasons plus these reasons I personally find acceptable / non-toxic for CE medium rep players:
- They had something I wanted and refused to give it up.
- They insulted / were rude to me.
- They were a crusader / vigilante.
- I had an assassination contract.
- They were consuming resources I wanted / are in competition with my business.
I'm sure there's many more I can come up with if I think on it hard enough.
However a few I don't find acceptable / consider to be toxic are:
- Because I felt like it.
- Because they had a green hat.
- Because they were an elf, and I don't like elves.
- Because I was teaching them life is tough / this game is not safe.
I'd like GW to do as best of a job as they can to make sure we can engage in the meaningful types I listed (Though some such as "They were rude / insulted me" and "They were consuming resources I wanted / are in competition with my business" obviously can't be allowed for mechanically beyond a bit of forgiveness in the reputation system for medium rep players and the ability to declare a war/feud.) and any other good ones they can come up with, and as best of a job as they can to make sure that everything else is penalized.
So far the reputation system being described is doing a fairly decent job of that.
Note: It goes without saying that there is a lot of ground between NG high-rep and CE-high rep and that some of (but not all of) the things I listed as acceptable for a CE-med rep would also be acceptable for some of the alignments in-between such as LE high rep players being able to assassinate people.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks to me like Andius wants to protect the newest and less skilled players from the predations of older more skilled killers. That he is ok with competition between equal or nearly equal abilities. I doubt that he would hold back attacking some "lvl 5" killers assaulting some "lvl 1" newbs with his "lvl 10" force though.Somewhat. I certainly find veterans preying on newbs for weak reasons or personal amusement to be the most detestable form of PvP. Can flipping would fall under that category.
But basically what I object is killing for the sake of killing. That still leaves room for a TON of acceptable forms of PvP.
All of the following reasons are ones that I personally find acceptable / non-toxic for myself and any other high rep NG player:
- I was at war / in a feud with them.
- They attacked me / an ally / a friendly / a neutral player and I was defending myself / that player.
- They disobeyed our settlement's / ally's settlment's laws.
- They were a murderer.
- I had a bounty contract.
- They were of an opposing faction.
- They wanted to fight me.All those reasons plus these reasons I personally find acceptable / non-toxic for CE medium rep players:
- They had something I wanted and refused to give it up.
- They insulted / were rude to me.
- They were a crusader / vigilante.
- I had an assassination contract.
- They were consuming resources I wanted / are in competition with my business.I'm sure there's many more I can come up with if I think on it hard enough.
However a few I don't find acceptable / consider to be toxic are:
- Because I felt like it.
- Because they had a green hat.
- Because they were an elf, and I don't like elves.
- Because I was teaching them life is tough / this game is not safe.I'd like GW to do as best of a job as they can to make sure we can engage in the meaningful types I listed (Though some such as "They were rude / insulted me" and "They were consuming resources I wanted / are in competition...
I think that when it comes right down to it, you both have playstyles that are (in general) going to be normal and acceptable for PfO. You both want to defend and strengthen your individual styles and that is only natural. If/when either of you cross the line, you will know it and will have to adjust. You will both probably be great content for each other or others of similar and/or opposing views. The final definitions of acceptable play, greifing, etc... will be GW's and I think that they will eventually find the right balance.
The reason that I am glad that you will be playing is because (if you are as proactive as you indicate here) you will be charging around and helping make play a little more possible for those less PVP oriented. When I play a merchant or harvest/gather Alt, I will be glad that you and anyone of similar mindset are out there. (Except when we are at war :P)
The reason that I am glad that Bluddwolf and the UNC will be playing is because they will make play a little more dangerous and exciting. What can be accomplished despite them will be more meaningful to me. If they get out of hand they will suffer for it. I have great confidence in that. They do have to have the possibility to be successful at their play too, as long as it is acceptable behavior.
The rest of the back and forth here is just flag waving and chest thumping before engagement. :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well I think Ryan just pretty clearly stated the style of play Bluddwolf has traditionally engaged in (can flipping) is both horrible, and griefing.
If he is willing to modify his behavior to bring it in line with what is not horrible / toxic / griefing by the broad and arbitrary definition GW will be using then I'll be glad to play with him.
If not, or he attempts to push a far as he possibly can without crossing into the hard definitions of griefing he wants set, he'll probably get banned before I ever get the chance to cross swords with him.
So he better start reading this and taking every point of it to heart:
Don't do things that make people angry just to make them angry. Don't use bad design elements to trick people into doing things they wouldn't do if they understood the consequences of their actions. Don't do things that make the game servers work slowly or incorrectly. Don't take advantage of an error in the game that gives you more information than you should have, makes you more powerful than you should be, rewards you more than you should be rewarded or puts the game into a condition that generates errors and inconsistencies for yourself or other players.
Don't be a jerk.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
As I have clearly stated, there won't be can flipping in PFO. There also won't be suicide banking, or many other tactics used in eve, so the point is moot in discussing what could happen In PFO.
My only intent with my bandit, is to rob the highest value targets I can find where the risk vs. reward is staked in my favor. Typically this will allow for me to ignore newer characters or solo gatherers, I'd rather just raid an outpost instead.
As for Andius' list of CE permissible actions, none of them are actually CE. Just as his list for NG High Rep would apply to every alignment, including CE.
@ Bringslight,
I don't think we have as much common ground as you think, because Andius does not truly accept the motivation of taking from others as being non toxic. He couches all of his arguments in "protecting the new player" even though the new player area will be impossible to PvP in outside of sanctioned PvP.
What his true intentions are is to extend the same kind of protections beyond that kind of zone and to have the game mechanics to make that possible, so he does not have to himself.
How quickly would it be before "Newbies" will be hauling vast amounts of wealth and protest under the guise "I'm a new player" and "I have been griefed, this game is a murder simulator."?
Unless caravans are instantly feud able, this will end up being the norm. No merchant will give up the slogan, just to be able to haul a little bit more. It is better to have stiffer punishments to deter the bandit, than to accept risk at a higher level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There also won't be suicide banking
I am officially intrigued
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think we have as much common ground as you think, because Andius does not truly accept the motivation of taking from others as being non toxic.
This is a misrepresentation of his statements. He has nothing against the existence of playstyles that involve taking from others. He is against people advocating for those playstyles to have no consequence and cost just as you have repeatedly.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the last things I did in EVE before my PLEX lapsed was encounter a corporation named Tear Extraction And Retrieval Service (TEARS) at a major intersection of a major highway to the biggest trade hub in the game, wreck ganking mostly (create your own wreck and mislabel something huge inside as something small and very valuable, when someone tries to take it they don't have storage capacity but are still flagged as thieves and a free kill to your corp even in high sec).
When it comes to tweaking game mechanics and murder simulators, make of their intentions what you will. Mechanics alone can never make a game both enjoyably playable and impervious to TEARS.
---
My response was to use a small VERY fast ship to align and flag from their wreck but still be able to get away once they showed what their ganking plans were which included a stealthed tackling ship.
Then I hauled a dozen Thrashers (small cheap beginner ships that are nothing but guns and they rock) with a full compliment of targeting speed mods and eight artillery cannons loaded with two rounds of faction ammo per ship to a nearby station. Basically my ships could quickly fire off one or two absolutely devastating volleys of damage to cruiser and other smaller size vessels before CONCORD would come destroy me for high sec ganking. But the TEARS ships all cost 10-200x more than mine.
And is ganking TEARS ships at that intersection really griefing?
According to CCP all consequences were in place and known so it's all fine by them. GW might have a different feeling about TEARS and my response because of different design goals so it's a grey area until PO is a played game with hard actions to rule on.
Mechanics can't do it all, GMs can't do it all, players need to work with the designers to learn what things we have to do for ourselves that we might not have ever had to do before (like 100% crafter characters with role-specific combat training).
In case you weren't simply upholstering your sentiment with dry humor, I think his 'b' is a 'g'.I am officially intriguedThere also won't be suicide banking
I assumed as much however given the recent world banking crisis I thought I would check :)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In case you weren't simply upholstering your sentiment with dry humor, I think his 'b' is a 'g'.I am officially intriguedThere also won't be suicide banking
Maybe, but he could be referring to market warfare.
@Andius, thank you for showing up here and spewing forth your toxic venom. It shows that your high and mighty attitude is nonsense... you are as toxic as any Eve player I have ever met.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In case you weren't simply upholstering your sentiment with dry humor, I think his 'b' is a 'g'.I am officially intriguedThere also won't be suicide banking
You have to love auto-correct, but I let the "B" stand because it could lead to that intriguing discussion.
I will also tie it into the the OP discussion as well, because at 3:00 AM, that is when "Suicide Banking" would occur.
I have little doubt that the settlement manager(s) will bear no responsibility for banking scams, and the thief will be called a "griefer" by Andius and crew. For the record, I have never done this in EVE, but I know people who have.
Settlement Banks will likely have permission settings, allowing anyone on the permission list to deposit or withdraw items or cash from the bank.
We ALL KNOW that it will only be a matter of time before a deeply implanted thief will rob the settlement bank clean and then transfer everything to an alt, and then wipe the thief.
In some cases this actually turns out to be a settlement manager him/herself and then when the collective bank account of the settlement / corporation reached a few billion... Poof! Everything and that manager disappear at 3:00 AM.
Thoughts....